Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

cobra commander : so help me i will hog tie you and drop you off on the FLAGG :p

tera i had hope for SS when i heard my wifu was gonna be in the film , then i saw the costume ( and i lost all hope for her, they couldnt even give us the AA/AC versionof the costume ) ; well agree to disagree on the subject of gal tho.personally i said why i dont like her.

joe : my hatred for shamalan aka the career killer is justified . if you see will playing will thats on you bud ...me i liked deadshot since seeing him on arrow and fleshed it out.; we all are gonna ignore how dumb holywood thinks we are when we cant figure out why the movie is called TITLE, just like when i go to see neckbreaker versus batfleck (SUPERMAN VS BATMAN) its only going to be me supporting jason and whoever else is on the cast roster .
 
loosing hope for an actress merely because she doesnt look the way you want her to look? (not to mention she has a great harley look) Performance is where its mainly at for me.
 
cobra commander : so help me i will hog tie you and drop you off on the FLAGG :p
I suppose you are entitled to your opinion, but the fact is, you really shouldn't be concerned with Leto's acting ability. I saw Mr. Nobody, and found it not that engaging. I did like his performance though.

I understand why people feel how they feel about Will Smith. He just can't change the way he sounds. I'd say his best change of tone was Hancock...
 
my other concern is jason and a female who is equal to KRISTEN STEWART on the dullness factor ..i barely remember anything in furious she was in ( aside from she was hans girl) jason is going to dominate the fans .

we had soooo many females we coulda had as diana ( for examples)
Gina Carano

or even garcelle ( a knockout who has the size and the chops to be a strong female )

but no , we had to have someone who is JUST AS FORGETTABLE as Kristen ...and i dont want to hear how blah blah blah about gal because this is NOT female bashing , she is mediocre at best .

if you want to argue , explain the logic between this decision ANY OF THE ABOVE ACTRESSES got tossed out for THIS

View attachment 508565

THAT is not a female , that is card board cut out in desperate need of a sandwich.

You really cannot base the acting chops of someone on a role in the Fast and Furious franchise. Her "dullness" in those movies can be equally attributed to the fact that the movies themselves aren't exactly bastions of stellar writing and character development. The whole purpose of the F&F movies was to showcase fast cars, hot chicks, and a basic story to give it a reason to have it on screen.

If you were to base acting chops on the F&F movies, then you could just as equally say that Dwayne Johnson, Vin Diesel, and Paul Walker can't play anything other than dull, one-dimensional characters, something that we know is completely wrong, given Dwayne Johnson's breakout into comedy, Vin Diesel's evolution of the Riddick character (not to mention The Pacifier, one of his most underrated films), or Paul Walker's role in Hours.

I also find it funny that people always go to the skinniest pictures of Gal instead of taking the time to look up what she currently looks like.

Here's a shot of the Big Three together:

batman-v-superman.png


As you can see, Gal Gadot is NOT the super-skinny waif from a few years back. She has worked out and gained some muscle mass.

While no, she is not the wide-shouldered Wonder Woman from the comics and DCAU, the truth is that she doesn't HAVE to be. Depending on which origin story they are going with, she is either a magically created being or the demigod daughter of Zeus himself.

Either way, her powers and abilities are magical in nature and not a function of human physiology. Translation: She doesn't need to have the physical build to have the power.

If a character's physical strength were indeed a basic function of physiology, then Superman would have to have biceps about the size of Texas to pull off the crap he does.
 
I mostly don't have much issue with the casting in BvS or SS. I still don't like Henry Cavill's Superman, for reasons others have nailed in this thread and the various MoS stuff. But whatever. I still don't see why so many people are championing Gal as Wonder Woman, though. I understand the agruments about not needing bulk to be powerful, and yes she's worked out... But I would much, much rather have had Lynn Collins...

yhhtyjjyr3343trl.jpg


--Jonah
 
I mostly don't have much issue with the casting in BvS or SS. I still don't like Henry Cavill's Superman, for reasons others have nailed in this thread and the various MoS stuff. But whatever. I still don't see why so many people are championing Gal as Wonder Woman, though. I understand the agruments about not needing bulk to be powerful, and yes she's worked out... But I would much, much rather have had Lynn Collins...

http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static...343trl.jpg?token=/tB1zAgur4jLahBtsjKAWnxCL54=

--Jonah

Oh I would have loved to see her in the role. Either her or Gemma Arterton (especially after seeing how much of a badass she was in Hansel & Gretel).

However, I think Gal is a far better choice than Gina Carano. Gina may have the look, but she doesn't embody the warrior AND matronly qualities of Wonder Woman. Casting Wonder Woman is like casting James Bond. Sure you can get any actor who can do the physicality of Bond, but without his charismatic side, it's just not Bond.
 
professor,
you remember when penelope cruz was the hot thing ?? i ended up going to my local library and rented a few of her original movies , i would have been ok with cruz cus she has *gasp*RANGE (so far thats 3 skinny as heck females i just listed who have DEPTH and PERSONALITY when they act ).

that is all ok dude , but again i point out , gal doesnt strike me as anything but MOUSY... i had dropped jenlaw cus she played lovable , then went and flipped the script to bi-polar in SLP and official human trash in american hustle. sure you can use the power of fotoshop all you want but IF AN ACTRESS HAS TO GAIN WEIGHT FOR A ROLE that tells me she is tooo skinny for said part ( i didnt even mention her fisical qualities in my original post because it was her emotional connection that i had a problem with so i wouldnt get the general "oh he hates her cus she is a a-cup reaction").. I also went on to explain i hated SAORISE RONAN but she redeemed herself and got me as a fan after the one movie i hated her if you recall


inquisitor , i am one of the few people on RPF who proudly owns john carter ( both cus its a good movie ,and cus i liked the source material) i woulda been happy with deja's actress as well.
 
Last edited:
So instead of responding and maybe explain a bit more in what you might actually mean thats your "answer" instead...
 
Last edited:
Remember that time everyone laughed and said Guardians of the Galaxy was going to be a joke and Marvel's first colossal failure, and then everyone said it was Marvels best movie?

Maybe we wait until a film comes out before we say what failure it will be.
 
professor,
you remember when penelope cruz was the hot thing ?? i ended up going to my local library and rented a few of her original movies , i would have been ok with cruz cus she has *gasp*RANGE (so far thats 3 skinny as heck females i just listed who have DEPTH and PERSONALITY when they act ).

This is a poor analogy.

Yes, Penelope Cruz had a decent career in Hollywood before she became the Hot New Thing. This is not in dispute.

The thing is, Gal Gadot has not. To date, her released English-speaking movies that are not part of the Fast and Furious franchise are a small role Date Night, where she played an Israeli beauty who is hooking up with Mark Wahlberg's character (her lines were almost all in Hebrew, as her character did not know English that well) and had about thirty seconds of screen time, a small role in Knight & Day where she plays an intermediary between Tom Cruise and a buyer for a battery (it's part of the plot, don't ask), where she had about a minute of screen time, a one-time guest starring role on Entourage, and a small recurring role on the CW's very short lived show The Beautiful Life (it was cancelled after four episodes). Everything else she has done so far in films and television has been part of the Israeli cinema. This is not exactly a large and varied career in cinema to examine.

that is all ok dude , but again i point out , gal doesnt strike me as anything but MOUSY...

Don't know where you get "mousy" from, unless you assume "mousy" is related solely to her physical attributes. The actual adjective "mousy" means "nervous, shy, or timid." I think we can agree that her F&F role of Gisele is anything but nervous, shy, or timid.

i had dropped jenlaw cus she played lovable , then went and flipped the script to bi-polar in SLP and official human trash in american hustle.

So in the same post talking about how you like Penelope Cruz because she has range as an actress, you turn around and bash Jennifer Lawrence because she has range as an actress? Your logic is not like our Earth logic.

sure you can use the power of fotoshop all you want but IF AN ACTRESS HAS TO GAIN WEIGHT FOR A ROLE that tells me she is tooo skinny for said part

I'm fairly certain that Charlize Theron's Oscar-winning portrayal of serial killer prostitute Aileen Wuornos in Monster would beg to differ with that statement...

e1c3ec6d696597bd2071e1d69989c604_600x400.jpg
 
Remember that time everyone laughed and said Guardians of the Galaxy was going to be a joke and Marvel's first colossal failure, and then everyone said it was Marvels best movie?

Maybe we wait until a film comes out before we say what failure it will be.

But is there really any indication that this movie wants to approach how it views Superman any differently the second time around? Everything I've seen so far regarding this movie has been focused on Superman's conflict around whether or not he should HELP OTHERS. That was something I really didn't like in the last movie and I certainly don't care for it here.
 
But is there really any indication that this movie wants to approach how it views Superman any differently the second time around? Everything I've seen so far regarding this movie has been focused on Superman's conflict around whether or not he should HELP OTHERS. That was something I really didn't like in the last movie and I certainly don't care for it here.

we call that SNYDER-SYNDROME (if im wrong about it ,some one correct me ) , apparently every director his his schtick and the messiah complex was zacks ( which was pointed out via TOPLESS ROBOT.com ), he always chooses movies where there is a conflict in this filosofical level
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But is there really any indication that this movie wants to approach how it views Superman any differently the second time around? Everything I've seen so far regarding this movie has been focused on Superman's conflict around whether or not he should HELP OTHERS. That was something I really didn't like in the last movie and I certainly don't care for it here.

I look at it differently. Every cinematic and animated portrayal of Superman (with the exception of Gods and Monsters) has made it out to be that becoming a hero is a matter of destiny and completely out of his control.

With Cavill's Superman, we get more of a realistic look at the issue. See, for all his vast power, Clark Kent is still just a person, and people have to make choices in life. Yes, Clark Kent is a good man. That is not in question. He was raised well by his adoptive parents. Even if he had not been a Kryptonian, he would have still been a good man. His powers are inconsequential to that.

You don't become a hero because of who you are or what you can do. You do so in spite of it. That is the point. Clark Kent shouldn't become Superman because his relatives tell him to do so or because he is told that it is his destiny. That is not becoming a hero. That is indoctrination.

No, Clark has to choose it for himself and accept the consequences of it. This is why I think Martha said what she said: "Be their hero, Clark. Be their angel. Be their monument. Be anything they need you to be. Or be none of it. You don't owe this world a thing. You never did." She's telling him that if he is going to be a hero, he shouldn't do so out of a sense of obligation or because he has no choice. He should do it because it is the right thing to do. THAT is what makes Superman someone worth looking up to.
 
Last edited:
I don't get the fuss over WW,I always thought she was as stupid as Superman-and before I get called sexist I liked gals like Liberty Belle and Tigra more,even Spider Woman ranked higher then WW.

She's in the movie,she looks fine,end of story for me.
 
Like when Clark saved Papa Kent in spite of being told not to?

Unfortunate as it was, Jonathan Kent's death was a pivotal lesson for Clark. He could have saved him, but he didn't, and that will haunt him for the rest of his life. It was an unintended final lesson by his adoptive father that if you can act, you should, in spite of the consequences. This is why he traveled the world and saved people when he could. Sure, he had some slip ups on the way (such as the revenge destruction of that one jerkass's big rig), but he still helped people. The problem is that he still kept himself out of the public's eye and did not reveal his existence. To the rest of the world, there were no aliens living amongst humanity. Zod's arrival and attempt to terraform (Kryptoform?) Earth forced Superman into the open. Now he is faced with the consequences of this and has to learn to do what he does with the world aware of his existence.
 
There is absolutely nothing more realistic about the Snyder Superman. It's just a different spin on Superman that's (very) removed from what we've seen before - it's not 'more realistic' or anything more 'real' - it might be a darker spin on the mythos; but, realistic? no.

I'll continue to disagree about Jonathon Kent's death. Yes, it could've been a pivotal lesson for Supes, but the way Man of Steel did it just made it seem senseless.

Man of Steel had too many complete misses that just made the movie that much more difficult to watch. It had the potential to be a great film - instead we get this half-assed film that rather than be a Superman film, opted to try and be what Nolan did for Batman. Sadly, they forgot that Batman and Superman are completely different characters and while Superman can have an edge to him... making him this dark anti-hero type just isn't what the Superman character is about.

I'll also reason that a direct Man of Steel sequel would have been a bust. There's a reason they're bringing Batman in... it's to save this franchise and build the DC cinematic film universe. A MoS 2 would've killed it.
 
Unfortunate as it was, Jonathan Kent's death was a pivotal lesson for Clark. He could have saved him, but he didn't, and that will haunt him for the rest of his life.

How noble of Jonathan. He chooses to bestow a lifetime of guilt on Clark and leave his wife a widow just so he could teach him a gawddang lesson.

To the rest of the world, there were no aliens living amongst humanity. Zod's arrival and attempt to terraform (Kryptoform?) Earth forced Superman into the open. Now he is faced with the consequences of this and has to learn to do what he does with the world aware of his existence.

Maybe if Jonathan spent more time preparing his son for such an event instead of dying to prevent it, things might have actually turned out differently. But no, everything had to be kept a secret with that idiot. But than again, everyone in that movie was an idiot. What kind of a parent would complain about their child's life being saved? "And we've been told he's done this before!" What? Save your kid's life? You're welcome. :)
 
Back
Top